Jump to content

User talk:Sulfurboy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ruffsl (talk | contribs)
87 edits
No edit summary
Line 562: Line 562:
[[User:Gautamrajeev|Gautamrajeev]] ([[User talk:Gautamrajeev|talk]]) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Gautamrajeev|Gautamrajeev]] ([[User talk:Gautamrajeev|talk]]) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
:Those two sources only mention the org in passing. It's not an actual profile article about it. The third source is a blog which is questionably reliable. We need to see substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources, however many or few sources that takes. [[User:Sulfurboy|Sulfurboy]] ([[User talk:Sulfurboy#top|talk]]) 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
:Those two sources only mention the org in passing. It's not an actual profile article about it. The third source is a blog which is questionably reliable. We need to see substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources, however many or few sources that takes. [[User:Sulfurboy|Sulfurboy]] ([[User talk:Sulfurboy#top|talk]]) 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

== 17:28:44, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Ruffsl ==
{{Lafc|username=Ruffsl|ts=17:28:44, 28 July 2015|declined=Draft:Gazebo_simulator}}


[[User:Ruffsl|Ruffsl]] ([[User talk:Ruffsl|talk]]) 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just like to ask for some aid the revision for the draft [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gazebo_simulator|Gazebo_simulator].

My goal is to keep the article short and factual similar in style to existing example open source articles:

* [[Bullet_(software)]]
* [[Player_Project]]
* [[Robot_Operating_System]]

If you have detailed specifics on this matter, or know of an editor knowledgeable in the subject, please do not hesitate to inform.

Thanks
[[User:Ruffsl|Ruffsl]] ([[User talk:Ruffsl|talk]]) 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:28, 28 July 2015

'I will be working all of Saturday and Sunday the 25 and 26th. I will likely not be able to respond to anything until Monday. If you have an urgent matter please get ahold of an admin. Enjoy your weekend!'

See an issue needing an answer on my talk page that you could help with? Feel free to answer!

I will absolutely not respond to your comment unless you follow the following simple rules in placing a comment on my talk page.

  • 1)You have read my FAQ below and haven't asked a question answered by it.
  • 2)Appropriately post a new section (see button/link above) at the BOTTOM of the page
  • 3)Do not ask me to just generically fix your page without a specific question, I'm not interested in fixing everyone's page for them.
  • 4)You need to hyperlink to the page you are discussing, this is probably most important. If it's remotely difficult for me to figure out what page you're talking about, I'm not going to waste my time.

Sorry if those four things seem harsh, but I review and patrol hundreds of pages a day and can't keep up with all the replies.

FAQ You declined a page I submitted for AfC and have a question... If that question is directly answered by one of the hyperlinks posted after I reviewed it, I will not answer you. You'd be surprised how often it happens. The posted links are posted for a reason!

Why did you not leave a comment when you tagged my page? I typically won't unless I think the issue may be unclear. New page patrol is overwhelmed (~50,000 pages to be reviewed with only ~1000 being currently reviewed every week) and if I spent the time to explain every tag, I wouldn't be able to review even a third of the pages I do now.

I completely disagree with a tag you placed on my page!! If you disagree with a tag, please state why on the article's talk page and leave a note here for me to review it. If you think the tag was a blatant error on my part (it happens, sorry), then please revert the edit and leave me a message letting me know that was the case.

I don't see a conversation or message I posted on your talk page... Check the archives, conversations are typically automatically archived after five days. If you wish to comment on an archived section, please move it back to the main page. I do not regularly monitor my archive pages.

Why do you keep tagging my page? Do you have something against me? No. Occasionally after you address certain issues, more issues will arise on my re-review. For example, let's say I first tagged your page for having no references, after you add references I may go back and add a tag for no in-line citations (which would have been irrelevant before there were references). Also, if there are multiple, small issues with your page and I can see you're new, I might just tag a few things at a time instead of overwhelming a new user. Please do not take any of my tags personally. I do not target people. I go straight down the list on the new page patrol. I do however regularly watch pages I review, which is why you might see me come up often in edits on your page.

Will you help me fix issues you tagged on my page? Typically not, unless I need a break from new page patrol. Why? I used to do this and it got to be very overwhelming. I feel the actual new page patrol needs my help more than helping to fix things on already existing pages (not to mention there's others much more qualified than me for most fixes suchs as categories, copyediting, etc). It doesn't hurt to ask though, but please do not be offended if I do not help or don't respond. The tea house is your friend, use it. Note: I will always clarify on tags, though. All in all,don't hope the house will build itself!

I would like to give you an award, thank you note, or barnstar... Thanks! You're awesome. And I always love the support. But please put it on my user page, not my talk page. :)

Road Recovery

Hello,

You posted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Road_Recovery that the comments about Gene Bowen need to be sourced and cited. All information about Gene Bowen was written by the man himself. How am I supposed to cite that?

Thank you

Roadrecovery (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) That's fine just use the same source to cite each statement.Sulfurboy (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How should I cite word of mouth? Roadrecovery (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:02, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Abe21476


Hi, Thank you for your inputs. I have edited the article accordingly and resubmitted it. I request for your assistance if the page requires any further edits.

Thanks

Abe21476 (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the page.Sulfurboy (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:15:28, 23 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Soltesh


Hi!

Thanks for the help in reviewing my first article sire, please i still don't understand what you meant when you said "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability" should i take out the other references? and leave only the one linking to the print media "The Nation Newspaper"? Please i would be very much happy if you could assist in this article, and am looking forward in seeing my first article go live.

Many Thanks Sire.

Soltesh (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources. This should be fully explained in the links posted in the rejection. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:26, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Friersow


Friersow (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Hello! I'm asking how I can improve this page. The page has three of the requirements needed for a notable musician: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[reply] 

- See references.

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. - "You're Speaking My Language", which Morse co-wrote and performed. It made it #35 on the UK Top Singles chart.

3. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. 

- He's in Offspring, who have sold millions of albums.
- He's played in bands with two notable actors.
- He's played with a member of Sum 41, who have sold millions of albums.

What else can I do? Thank you for your help.

12:25:04, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Friersow


Friersow (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Hello. What else can I do to support this page? There are several online news articles about her. Would this added source help? http://stcroixsource.com/content/news/local-news/2015/02/02/island-profile-what-heart-can-endure[reply]

The problem is most of the sources aren't directly about her or are press releases. Yes that source may help. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability standards

Hello! Thanks for reviewing my submissions at Draft:David J. Cannon and Draft:Hugh R. O'Connell. I understand your rationale for rejecting each, but I respectfully disagree. According to the notability guidelines for politicians, locally-notable individuals "can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." This would be the case for each, Cannon in particular due to his time as a federal officeholder. Additionally, I would argue that O'Connell at least meets the lesser standard of a "major local political figure[] who [has] received significant press coverage". Thanks for your time and enjoy your day! 74.127.175.164 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind on these. Approved. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:25, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Contributions to gbr


contributions to gbr 15:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

15:21:03, 23 July 2015 review of submission by 175.101.11.11


175.101.11.11 (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate drafts

I have reverted your review of Draft:Osteomyoplastic Amputation Reconstruction (2), which you declined as a duplicate of Draft:Osteomyoplastic Amputation Reconstruction. The other exists, but is older, in worse shape, and was not submitted for a review. Yours, Huon (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:19, 23 July 2015 review of submission by Nealmcb


Thank you for the encouragement. I've tried to make the lede quite a bit better in terms of a non-technical intro and more context, links etc. and resubmitted. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, thanks for improving it. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KHOI-FM orphan template

I linked the KHOI article to the List of radio stations in Iowa by fixing the redlink on this page and did the same with the Khoi disambig page. The article was already linked to two categories: Community radio in the United States and Radio stations in Iowa. Since this is a stub, these few references should be sufficient for the time being so I'm removing the orphan template you applied. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:47:12, 24 July 2015 review of submission by Worldreporter2000


Hello, my apologies but I fail to understand why you keep rejecting this article? I have made amendments in order to comply with neutrality guidelines. Furthermore, I have made sure it includes published sources and necessary citations. I have also contacted the Wikipedia live chat to make sure that any wrong language is removed. Also, it has been written in the same pattern and style as similar organizations' Wikipedia articles. Would you be so kind as to advise what needs to be done differently according to you? With many thanks, Marc --Worldreporter2000 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Worldreporter2000 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


23 July 2015 review of submission by Smustieles

Hi Sulfurboy,

Thank you for reviewing my submission.

If possible would you be able to elaborate on your reason for rejection of submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Make_It_Cheaper.

I believe I have given notable references which are all independent and the links to those references are all independent, possibly with exception of the About Us page. If this is the reason then I will remove it, its just I have seen this on other similar type pages.

If you can give me a bit more direction I will be happy to take your steer on this.

Thanks again

Smustieles

Yes, you have given independent and notable references, unfortunately the sourcing isn't in-depth. By that I mean, none of the sources are profiling or discussing the company directly. Instead the company is mentioned in passing or is mentioned in association with the CEO. We need to see substantial coverage of the company itself. Hope that makes sense. Good luck. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Avery Rigg for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avery Rigg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avery Rigg (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:53:17, 24 July 2015 review of submission by Antonio Frangioni


I respectfully disagree with the rejection of the draft. Let me try to argument it.

The wiki article is not "taken" from the survey: I have written both, and they both deal with the same subject. So, of course they say largely the same things: it would be strange if it were otherwise. Most of the text in the wiki page has been written from scratch without no reference to the article. For some material I have taken inspiration from the article, but there is no single full sentence that is copied verbatim.

As the author of the original article, making abstracts and excerpts of it in other works lies entirely within my remit. I am author of more than 50 scientific publications and editor in 3 journals (among which 4OR), and I am absolutely positive that the kind of work done here would be perfectly acceptable as, say, part of the introductory paragraph in another scientific article on UC submitted to any prestigious scientific journal. To be on the safe side, however, I have contacted the Editors of the journal in question (4OR) and asked their opinion. Their answer is:

> As an Editor-in-Chief of 4OR, I believe you have the right to paraphrase your excellent survey, > and provide any abstract and summary you may like, according to the permission "in spirit" > that Springer normally grants their authors to disseminate parts of their published works in > public venues.

You can check with Leo Liberti (liberti@lix.polytechnique.fr) about this.


Let me mention that the Editors can only be happy about the wiki page because it makes the article more relevant, but this is not my point for making it. There is no wiki reference to many important problems in energy optimization. This is something we are currently trying to solve in the COST project that I'm helping to steer (link in the page), and the current article is, hopefully, only the first of several others that should do the same thing for other energy problems.

I see the page (and the others hopefully to follow) as being both perfectly legally and morally acceptable, and beneficial for all the parties: Wikipedia (which gains high-quality content curated by top-level scientific experts), the users (who get the new content), the authors and also the journals on which the corresponding articles (comprised, but not limited to, my survey) are published. Besides, the page is not meant to be about my article but about the problem: I hope that it will be improved, by me and others, and hopefully it will evolve over time to be even less related to the article than it is today.

I therefore suggest that you reconsider the rejection. Of course I'm available to make further modifications if more specific issues have to be solved, but I'm at a loss to deal with the refusal in these terms. Any wiki page about UC would have to say more or less the things the page says, and the names that are used are the ones that are current in the literature and therefore cannot be changed (except these that already had, such as "electrical grid", to better match these current on Wikipedia). If absolutely necessary I can try to re-arrange the contents so that they *look even less like* these of the article, but I frankly don't see the point. The content would be the same, as this is the content that is required.

Thank you for your attention. And I appreciate feedback. As I already told you, I'm working to have several more articles on these subjects (energy optimization problems) written. We know how to write scientific articles, but for many in our community publishing on Wikipedia is not as common. Any lesson I learn I can transmit to the others.

Antonio Frangioni (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just take your word for it that you wrote the article yourself, you need to go through the proper channels provided via the deletion comment to show this and permission to use it. Further if you are having issues finding sources, then this means the topic is simply not notable for wikipedia at this time. We require substantial, independent and reliable coverage to show notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sulfurboy. Thank you for your kind offer of help with the page 'Elizabeth Newson' which I placed up on WK recently. I had permission to freely use copyrighted material by the author but in spite of that I am going back to the article and rewriting it and adding extra references so as to make sure it does not offend any copyright guidelines whatsoever. In the meantime I am going to do a couple more additions and corrections to WK articles and submit a further draft of a new article, hopefully doing better at the first attempt than with my last article. Thanks, I will take up your offer of help. Jonathonhargreaves (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Draft Relativistic Global Non-Inertial Reference Frames by Sulfurboy Here was your comment on my resubmission "still too close, but not so close that it needs to be speedy deleted. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)"

Dear Sulfurboy, I rewrote several pages so that they would not include too many verbatim sentences from an outside source. Since the paragraphs that were rewritten were part of an extensive scientific and mathematical definition it is not surprising that even the rewritten version appears to be a paraphrase. Given the chance that there are other portions of the paper than the piece that I rewrote that you still find are too close to the outside source then please send to me or indicate to be in some way what that portion is which you find too close of a paraphrase. Thank you for your help Hcrater (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LogicMonitor, Inc - Draft page

draft:LogicMonitor, Inc.

Hi Sulfurboy - Thanks for looking at the article draft on LogicMonitor, Inc. I made some edits according to why the submission was denied and based on your feedback of "Article doesn't stay neutral and gives too much technical info that isn't needed for an encyclopedic article. Awards are also repeated in prose and list form". I deleted the awards section in prose form and just kept in list form. I also am deleting the technical info that you state is not needed for an encyclopedic article.

I suppose the main thing is after all of the edits is the fact the article does not stay neutral - is there anything else I can edit or delete in order for this submission to be approved? I actually tried to follow the same format as the competitors of the company on Wiki (Nagios, SolarWinds) and assumed if I followed those articles that were already approved that this would fall in line with the same neutral article guidelines. Perhaps I was wrong in copying their format. I've looked over the guidelines of Wiki via the links in the denied review, but am still unsure of where I went wrong. If you could point me in the right direction, that would be helpful! For the most part, I deleted anything that may sound like advertising and tried to remain neutral in terms while speaking about the company. I also just listed the companies history, so not really much about the product itself. Does that help in getting it approved? I believe I have also given notable references which are all independent and the links to those references are all independent, possibly with exception of the Certification Program reference. If this is the reason then I will remove it, its just I have seen this on other similar type pages. Please advise. (SarahMorrison9 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC));[reply]

Thanks in advance.

Can you check the hyperlink you gave above for the draft? Thanks.Sulfurboy (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated link & made LogicMonitor above linked to the draft version- let me know if you still are unable to click through. Thanks Sulfurboy!

Please see my comment on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated per your comment on the draft page. (SarahMorrison9 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

17:41:59, 24 July 2015 review of submission by Cary.tanaka


I am confused as to how the references are considered press releases. None of the references are published by anyone associated with the company, and are all credible by other parties. Please clarify. Cary.tanaka (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that the previous issues weren't addressed. This includes the notability concern. All the sources I see either are primary (company videos or interviews) or only mention the company in passing, but aren't substantial in-depth coverage. As it stands this article does not pass WP:CORP. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point out the problem please

Hello Sulfurboy, do you mind showing me exactly where my problem is with the inline citations. I'm trying to not be a rookie at this anymore. It would be a great help. Lakefist (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined- What exactly is wrong with my inline citations?

Hi Sulfurboy, Thank you for reviewing my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Richter. As the person aboved me has requested, do you mind specifically telling me what's wrong with my inline citations? I ask just so I know I am doing the write thing before I go through the process of adding and editing again. The facts (awards, education, ect.) are backed up by the citations I have, so when you get a chance please let me know the mistake I've made. Thanks, Keelsh01 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you fixed the citations. Good job. There is one more issues we have with PRs. Please see the page for mroe info. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sulfurboy, I fixed the sources that used press releases and added more reliable sources. Let me know how it looks now! Keelsh01 (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sulfurboy, I have worked diligently to fix both citation problems. Can you please approve my article or direct me otherwise? Thanks, Keelsh01 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article. Can I quote sources if I cite them properly?

My article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Interpersonal_Gap

You wrote: This submission appears to be taken from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED149229.pdf.

I have never seen the article you referenced before. I am glad to be adding it to my collection of John L. Wallen materials. However, the document you found is not an original. It is a compilation of materials by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NREL). If you look at my list of references you will see that I have several materials from the NREL. Perhaps something is missing but this NREL document because it gives no references for the sources of its material.

Nonetheless, I am not using anything from the article you cited. I am quoting some things from the source material of that article. Is quoting and citing sources not ok?

I also include an entire unpublished article by John L. Wallen at the end of my proposed wiki page. Is that a cause of rejection?

I also quote on several occasions from this article: Chinmaya, A. & Vargo, J.W. (1979). Improving Communication: The Ideas of John Wallen. John Abbott College and the University of Alberta.

Is that acceptable? I chose to do so partially because of feedback during a prior rejection that I was relying too much on my own opinion and on John Wallen, the creator of the communication model I am attempting to document. I thought OI needed to quote other sources, so I am a bit confused if you are trying to say that quotes are bad.

Thank you for your time.

64.134.242.119 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC) dadquixote[reply]

If you're quoting something from a piece, you need to put it in quotes. There was a substantial amount of paraphrasing from that source. Please also implement inline citations as that will be a problem for acceptance as well. Also the page needs to be formatted like a wikipedia page, please see basically any wikipedia page for reference, and if you have issues with syntax and formatting, please visit the teahouse which is linked on your user page. You should also do the same since you seem to be having issues with your references. Please understand you a far way away from this article being accepted. Also, I'm working all weekend so I won't be able to view this again till at least Monday. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Hippychickali. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Miloš Milovanović, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Hippychick (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was the purpose in unreviewing it? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

A page you accepted at AFC, Kim Nam-joon, is currently up for deletion at AfD, in case you're interested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Namjoon. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

00:42:21, 25 July 2015 review of submission by Milkeung


Thanks for your comments about the submission. We are revising the submission and deleted unnecessary sentences. It would be great if you can advise us further in this process.

Also, do Wikipedia usually accept submission about industry collaboration project, like this one? Such initiative is beneficial to industry participants.

Milkeung (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Who is we? Wikipedia accounts should not be shared in the manner you seem to be suggesting by what you said. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:57:43, 25 July 2015 review of submission by Oliver.D-56


Hello Sulfurboy,

I have tried to correct the page, based on your inputs. Thank you for the reviewing of it. Please, can you help with the editing of the info box? I've looked around Wikipedia to learn how to do it, but I didn't find it.

Best regards,

Oliver.D-56 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliver.D-56: It seems the infobox is fixed now and the article is neat and sourced but I would still add more further sources you have to fully establish independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fun School Discussion

Greetings, I should like an additional opinion based on the Fun School series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun School 6 . You may wish to examine the articles what with the recent edits I made to establish notability. Any concrete suggestions you can give would be highly appreciated. Deltasim (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the best case scenario is to merge them into one, well put together article. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dangerfield

I think I have made the required improvements for this article. Could you please review again. Thanks.Gomach (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For maintence tags, you can remove them yourself if you feel the issue has been resolved. You don't need my permission. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:34:58, 26 July 2015 review of submission by Omeradam1993

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hello Sulfurboy, I don't understand why you have declined my request for "Maharan Frozenfar" Wikipedia page. I have added multiply sources about his career and his important rule in the Israeli Defence Forces. I have added various sources from: DefenseNews, Jerusalem Post, Reuters, Globes, Haaretz and more, and information taken from his offical website - All of these sources confirm that all the information is currect, and represet his notablity. Furthermore, Maharan already has a page in Wikipedia in Hebrew and in Persian, that consider the same content: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%9F_%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%96%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%A8 https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86_%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%81%D8%B1

Please consider approve the request.

Thank you,


Omeradam1993 (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Review of submission by Reaason

Thank you for reviewing my draft (twice) at


I'm trying to establish, whether I should keep working on it or not. Basically, I've read the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles and asked for advice at the Teahouse (my question) and I'm still not sure.

As far as I can see, the subject of my draft meets (at least) the criteria defined in sections 1, 2 and 11. Would you agree with this and is it enough in terms of notability?

As for the sources, I think the ones used in the article are some of the most independent and reliable in the Finnish and Swedish context. Was the lack of sources in English(?) the/a primary reason for the rejection? Anything else that contributed to that decision?

Thank you, have a good day! :) Reaason (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sections are you talking about? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the numbered items under notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. Thanks. Reaason (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on 1 and 11, but it does pass 2. I'll approve it. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:25:43, 27 July 2015 review of submission by 89.145.233.90


Hi there, thanks for reviewing the article. To be honest I am a bit disappointed it didn't meet the criteria since I read all the rules and spent quite a bit of time on the life chat making sure it stands a chance of being published.

The first time I submitted, I was told that the references weren't strong enough, so I replaced them with independent media ones compared to blogger references. I though media such as 'The Telegraph' and the 'Independent' are fairly strong testimonials. I am really confused of why they are still not good.

In terms of the writing style, I used other, similar articles as a guide and I thought that the language is neutral. However I will review it again to make sure there isn't any promotional voice.

Please could you give me some more guidance on these points so I can edit them and resubmit the article. Your support is much appreciated.

Best, Dorotea

89.145.233.90 (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:47, 27 July 2015 review of submission by 89.145.233.90


Hi there, thanks for reviewing the article. To be honest I am a bit disappointed it didn't meet the criteria since I read all the rules and spent quite a bit of time on the life chat making sure it stands a chance of being published.

The first time I submitted, I was told that the references weren't strong enough, so I replaced them with independent media ones compared to blogger references. I though media such as 'The Telegraph' and the 'Independent' are fairly strong testimonials. I am really confused of why they are still not good.

In terms of the writing style, I used other, similar articles as a guide and I thought that the language is neutral. However I will review it again to make sure there isn't any promotional voice.

Please could you give me some more guidance on these points so I can edit them and resubmit the article. Your support is much appreciated.

Best, Dorotea

ps. I am referring to the article: Personal Oversea Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Personal_Overseas_Development#Pod_Volunteer

89.145.233.90 (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:49, 27 July 2015 review of submission by DSI EH


Dear reviewer,

I already added independant references to our wiki article. Can you please be more specific and tell me exactly which references should i edit/add.

Kind regards

DSI EH (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC) EH[reply]

DSI EH (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see substantial, independent coverage of the company itself. The articles listed just mention in in a routine or passing manner. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:12, 27 July 2015 review of submission by TCVCJ


You have thoroughly convinced me that this proposed article should be a paragraph in the already published piece on SR16! However, I hesitate to edit the piece as much as it would need to include the paragraph. And I'm not exactly sure how to do the inclusion - must it be in the same form as an original article with the references included in the body? I would sincerely appreciate your help!TCVCJ (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC) TCVCJ (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit away on your own. If something you do is in some way wrong it will eventually be caught by another editor. Good luck. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:31, 27 July 2015 review of submission by Hkb


Hkb (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. In terms of notability, Ros Schwartz has been awarded Legion d'honneur (from the French government) and various national prizes (UK), and I have put references to all of these. In terms of her contribution to the field, the best way to show this is by her publications and representation in important organisations.

Those things don't auto qualify someone for an article. Please review my comments that I already provided for what needs to be done. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:58:42, 27 July 2015 review of submission by 195.169.108.143


Hello Sulfurboy, could you please elaborate why the included footnotes do not meet the minimal standard for inline citations. Please not that there is also a general publications list in the article, but the citations to support the claims made in the article are provided as footnotes in the References section. 195.169.108.143 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biography section, which could be considered most contentious has no inline citations. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:47, 27 July 2015 review of submission by 50.246.212.53


50.246.212.53 (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My submission was recently declined because it does not show the subjects notability. I was just curious what I could add to improve it because currently it includes articles from INC 500, Bloomberg, and Boulderopolis.

Thank you!

Dear Sulfurboy,

Thank you for your message about the page I've tried to create for Janus Pannonius Poetry Prize. I have some copyright issues, I fully understand why it is problematic; however, I would like to ask whether it is possible to leave the page and its contents as it is now if I have the written support of the Hungarian PEN Club that proves that I can use the booklet and its contents to create the site? I can attach the letter for you to read anytime you wish! The link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janus_Pannonius_Grand_Prize_for_Poetry Thank you again in advance, Franciska78 (talk)Franciska78

I cannot help you with that, you need to provide the sourcing and permission rights via the proper channel. I don't do CV material reviews. But yes, your draft is safe and won't be deleted before it can be reviewed. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Capability_Maturity_Model_Cybersecurity

Dear Sulpurboy,

When an new article is submitted in draft, does it present for review automatically, or do I have to do something? Please see the below link for my new article, for review. Also, since I am sure there are many persons performing reviews for Wikipedia, I was wondering if there was a way to have you review this article, since you have previous experience specific to CMM, from your previous reviews of articles of this nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Capability_Maturity_Model_Cybersecurity CMM Cybersecurity

Thank you in advance, Sean Connors --Sean p connors (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have the formatted AfC box on the page. Reread the AfC guidelines to find it. And then yes you need to manually submit it. However I can tell you right now your article would fail. It reads more like a brochureSulfurboy (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC) and is highly advertismal.[reply]

19:49:17, 27 July 2015 review of submission by Sharktrager442


Hi Sulfurboy - I'm fairly new to article writing here. Please can you let me know what areas need further work on the Ari Norman article. All information is correct, so wondered which areas still need citations. Many thanks SharkSharktrager442 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Sharktrager442 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any substantial claim needs a backing source the career and on are very much lacking. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment - Bob the Vid Tech character and production

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bob_the_Vid_Tech&action=edit

Hello Sulfurboy, Thank you very much for your attention to my Bob the Vid tech submission, I really appreciate it. In answer to your comment which was "Comment: I could see the show maybe being notable enough for an article. But I don't see the purpose of a standalone article for the character, especially when a page hasn't seemingly been made for the show yet. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)"

I understand your concern. The catch here is that there was no show, the character of "Bob the Vid Tech" was the production and only constant during this 17 year period on Maryland Public Television. There is a Wiki link on the MPT page here, which is what I'm hoping to expand upon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Public_Television

He was without his own regular long form program or series, but was presented in hundreds of short interstitials and a dozen 30 minute Emmy winning specials that were packaged within either as "The Children's Channel" on MPT or "MPT Kids and Family", which was merely TV day part branding of the station. I also added the "MPT Kids and Family" link for reference in the wiki. Since production was cancelled in 2010, references to Bob are no longer on MPT's web site, which of course would've helped.

Thank you for any additional thoughts. I did find more online references and added them. This was a beloved television personality and production in the mid-atlantic region, and I like there to be some preserved history for people to see. (I'm not Bob, in case you're worried about self promotion!)

Best and thanks for your professional eye again.

- RicDeckard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RicDeckard

Request to review AFC submission Draft:Vanguard_Dutch_Marine

hi Graham, Bothering you again with an AFC (this being my second article if selected). Please have a look as and when feasible. Thanks in advance. Devopam (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:56:01, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Rye Giggs


Hi, Sulfurboy.

Thanks for your kindly review of the article, please share me more information about what kind of the references do we need to provide to verify the information, or can you tell me more about which information do we need to add reference to verify.

Thanks in advance!


Rye Giggs (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Reviews by software review sites aren't really considered to show notability, as they are routine and done for any piece of software. We need to see independent coverage of the impact of the software and why it is notable and important enough to be in an encyclopedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:43, 22 July 2015 review of Creative Mobile - Draft page by RadRacer20xx

Hi Sulfurboy - Thanks for looking at the article draft on Creative Mobile The article was not accepted due to This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability

I've made some edits and included more reference citations, can you review and make any further comments on how to improve the article for approval?

I believe everything should qualify for approval in comparison to articles for similar game studios: Halfbrick Studios, Kiloo, Backflip Studios, Rovio Entertainment

Thanks! User:RadRacer20xx 13:27, 28 July 2015‎

Press releases need to be removed. They are not considered credible sources. Further we need to see independent, substantial coverage of the company itself, not just articles that mention it in pass or as a routine mention due to the games. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:25, 28 July 2015 review of submission by CinaedThePict


CinaedThePict (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Can you clarify what 'Please clarify between the references and sources so we can confirm this custom.' means? This isn't readily evident - I can assure you (as a Scot), it's a long established custom, and I'm very happy to link to additional video footage if needbe.

Meaning you should combine and format the reference and sources section. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:10, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Cary.tanaka


I am confused as to how our references are unacceptable, as they are all links with credible postings from third parties outside of the company. I would like to know what we can do to improve the page. Thanks. Cary.tanaka (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As was already stated in a previous decline, you need to remove the press releases. Also the tone of the article needs to be neutral and formal which it is not. Reads more like a company's about page than an encyclopedic article. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:02, 28 July 2015 review of submission by 195.110.76.194


I don't understand why the notability or verification of this person has been declined, they are an elected politician with a number of controversial actions which have all bee linked, including the link to offical counil pages to verify: http://committees.westminster.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=152


195.110.76.194 (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up second round of edits for RW3 Page

Afternoon Sulfurboy. I got some help from the Wiki community and made a good amount of edits on the RW3 Technologies page. Looking forward to your comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RW3_Technologies

Cheers,

I think it is borderline, so I am going to allow another editor to review it. The backlog isn't bad so it should only be a couple days. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for publishing my article on the North Central RTD! Here's a kitten for you, because kittens are amazing.

P.S. It looks like this is showing up on your talk page, and I can't figure out how to send it to your user page instead. I'm new to this. Sorry.

Imagine Dragonflies (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's okay. I'll move it. Thank you! Sulfurboy (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:16:08, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Gautamrajeev


Hey, I wanted to know how many citations I need to get an article on Wikipedia. I sent 3 citations, two of them from India's leading national dailies- The Hindu and Deccan Herald. I haven't made any huge claims without citing. How much more is required? Gautamrajeev (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Gautamrajeev (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources only mention the org in passing. It's not an actual profile article about it. The third source is a blog which is questionably reliable. We need to see substantial coverage from independent and reliable sources, however many or few sources that takes. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:44, 28 July 2015 review of submission by Ruffsl


Ruffsl (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to ask for some aid the revision for the draft [1].

My goal is to keep the article short and factual similar in style to existing example open source articles:

If you have detailed specifics on this matter, or know of an editor knowledgeable in the subject, please do not hesitate to inform.

Thanks Ruffsl (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&oldid=673500727"